Re:EPA dismisses half of its scientific advisers on key board
by tomp on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @06:15AM
(#14298830)
I haven't read Popper, and thanks for this quote.
Although I don't quite understand what your objection is. It seems to me that the main difference is between "empirical" science and non-science, so "empirical" is kind-of superfluous (as there is no science that isn't empirical).
Still, I'd argue that science is more than just empirical, as it needs to be sound/coherent as well, not just based on empirical evidence but actively trying to analyse an ddisprove that evidence - e.g. we can hardly say that traditional medicine (or even alternative medicine) isn't empirical, but it's hardly scientific (in fact, the same could be said for much of actual medicine as proper experiments are rarely performed and replicated even more rarely).
Although I don't quite understand what your objection is. It seems to me that the main difference is between "empirical" science and non-science, so "empirical" is kind-of superfluous (as there is no science that isn't empirical).
Still, I'd argue that science is more than just empirical, as it needs to be sound/coherent as well, not just based on empirical evidence but actively trying to analyse an ddisprove that evidence - e.g. we can hardly say that traditional medicine (or even alternative medicine) isn't empirical, but it's hardly scientific (in fact, the same could be said for much of actual medicine as proper experiments are rarely performed and replicated even more rarely).